Review: Disney's 'Tomorrowland,' With George Clooney, Burns Up In Orbit

Thumbnail: Tomorrowland works as a kid-friendly adventure only to stumble when it finally reveals its half-hearted concepts and ill-defined secrets.

The Box Office:

Stop me if you've heard this one: In a world of sequels, remakes, and revamps, one big-budget original would-be blockbuster from a beloved auteur has come to save Hollywood from itself! I do not mean to dismiss the very real issues with IP-based franchise development. Yet it stands to reason that if I have to keep writing sentences like the one above, and if I have to keep telling readers to go check out this new wholly original big-budget Hollywood genre film, then maybe the situation is only a little bit dire. Come what may, Brad Bird's Tomorrowland has become the poster child for the would-be diamond-in-the-rough in a sequel/franchise-heavy summer. The irony, of course, is that it comes from Walt Disney, the studio currently most associated with franchises and four-quadrant global tent poles that are allegedly taking over Hollywood.

This one has frankly been a tough sell. The film is clearly a kid-friendly adventure, and the marketing makes no bones about the fact that George Clooney is a supporting character rather than the lead. Britt Robertson is not exactly a known entity beyond film nerds, and the marketing has had to strike a balancing act. Director Brad Bird did not want the marketing campaign to spoil what surprises and reveals the picture might contain, but Disney needed to sell a movie that audiences felt was worth checking out in a theater. There is $190 million riding on this one, and while Disney can afford to take a loss with all of those Marvel and Lucasfilm bucks rolling in, they would rather not. At the moment, it is tracking at a $50 million Fri-Mon Memorial Day debut, and if that comes to pass then the Mouse House has nothing to worry about.

Having said that, just as Andrew Stanton "apologized" to Disney forJohn Carter in the form of Finding Dory, I would wager that Brad Bird now being vocal about making The Incredibles 2 is a sign that the Mouse House is not expecting a blockbuster this time around. Correlation is not causation. However, I have seen this too many times (for example, Bryan Singer jumping into X-Men: Days of Future Past right before Jack the Giant Slayer opens) not to raise my eyebrows accordingly. A few positive notes: First of all, George Clooney is a massive added value element, and he has been selling the crap out of this film accordingly. Secondly, Disney did something rather unusual last weekend, inviting a bunch of (pardon the expression) "Mommy Bloggers" to the big Red Carpet premiere and allowing them to participate in the junket process.

That is something that I may discuss later, but it is a pretty neat idea for getting the film extra publicity in venues where it might not otherwise get press while emphasizing the film's kid-friendly nature. Thirdly, those diabolical Disney franchises have beenTomorrowland's best marketing tool over the last several months. Audiences who have gone to see films likeAlexander and the Horrible, Terrible, No-Good, Very Bad Day, Cinderella, andAvengers: Age of Ultron in theaters have seen at least one of the trailers. Whether or not the trailers made the sale to the younger audience members and their parents I cannot say. However, my daughter very much wants to see this one, and it was only a scheduling conflict that prevented her from attending the press screening. So if she is in any way representative of the younger audience, then Disney might be okay in the long run.

The Review:

There are going to be a great many so-called "think pieces" written about Brad Bird's Tomorrowland over the next few weeks. If I say that the film does not quite live up to its subtexts, then I will also admit that it is a mostly entertaining adventure movie. It is not the wave of the future, but rather a nostalgic jaunt through a time when Hollywood made big movies explicitly for kids. For most of its two-hour running time, it is an engaging and exciting road-trip mystery film. It ironically only stumbles in the final act when it has to peel back the curtain and reveal its secrets. The fault lies in its screenplay that is credited to Damon Lindelof, Brad Bird, and Jeff Jensen. Said script leaves several seemingly key story points somewhat unexplained and ends on a rather simplistic and arbitrary note of razzle-dazzle that barely plays on the film's ideas. Moreover the crux of said ideas, specifically the attempt at examining our current worldwide pessimism, overlooks or outright ignores several very real reasons as to why the so-called future has not lived up to the hopes of the 1950's/1960's era dreamers.

For those not necessarily looking for a deep treatise on the human condition and commentary on the state of world affairs, Brad Bird's stylishly directed and gorgeous movie provides surface-level pleasures. The film suffers from John Carter syndrome, in that it pads its narrative with multiple prologues and a needless wrap-around device before getting to the actual story, but the results are at least more entertaining this time. It is a relatively small-scale film, with a potentially world-changing event taking place outside the purview of the rest of humanity. Following a prologue set at the 1964 World's Fair that introduces several major supporting characters and a tease of the title world, the narrative shifts to one Casey Newton (Britt Robertson) and her accidental (?) discovery of a seemingly magic pin that can transport her on a dime to well, some kind of futuristic utopia. Peril and mystery soon rear their ugly heads as attempts to discover the origins of said pin (and the truth about wherever it takes you) brings both danger and discovery.

Eventually, she reluctantly teams up with Athena (a movie-stealing Raffey Cassidy), who is a rather bad-ass would-be "recruiter" from the so-called Tomorrowland. If you have seen the previews you know that she eventually stumbles upon one Frank Walker (George Clooney), a disillusioned former inventor now watching the world kill itself day-by-day. Needless to say, the would-be heroes do eventually make their way to Tomorrowland, but what they discover there or what lies in store beyond that point I will not say. However, for the record, try not to go into the film expecting mind-blowing spectacle or shocking revelations. That is not a criticism but merely an acknowledgment that today's spoiler-filled marketing has left moviegoers under the impression that any film that does not give away the whole story in the trailers must be hiding something beyond imagination.

There was a time when a film likeTomorrowland would just be "a movie" as opposed to the great hope and great mystery that it is being presented as. That the film merely exists as a pleasant and occasionally expensive matinee attraction should not be held against it. The film is a kid-friendly action adventure fantasy, with well-sketched heroes, one somewhat interesting would-be villain (Hugh Laurie), and just enough peril to justify that PG rating. Those first two acts are pretty delightful. There are colorful turns from the likes of Clooney, Kathryn Hahn, and Keegan-Michael Key. Robertson is pretty great as isCassidy, who refreshingly exists as the primary action figure of the film. Yes, it is pretty cool that this fantastical blockbuster features two female leads, one as the primary explorer and the other as the one who shoots at stuff and beats up bad guys.The film remains Casey's story even when Clooney shows up, while the film's action sequences are, if not mind-blowing, well-staged and genuinely suspenseful. Most of the film is steeped in a certain amount of mystery, and sadly the third act trips on itself. It falters in terms of throwing out big (if generic) ideas and in terms of even trying to answer some pretty big questions that will be asked by even the least discerning members of the audience.

It is no secret that the film is somewhat based on Walt Disney's designs for a would-be future world that eventually became EPCOT. There is much monologue-ing regarding how we are no longer optimistic about the future and now view what is coming in mostly pessimistic terms. Like Chris Nolan'sInterstellar, the film ignores the very real reasons why we stopped going into space and never got jetpacks or flying cars. I blame 35 years of being taught that government investment was the devil and raised on a borderline Objectivist dogma, an investment in jails over schools,and a tax code that rewards corporate hoarders. The film also ignores the very real human consequences of advancements that we did make, namely advancements in automation that threatens to create a jobless society. I do not necessarily expect a PG-rated Disney adventure to get explicitly political or to examine what it means to have websites that can now do jobs that people once did. However, the film brings up questions that have hard-and-firm answers (or at least worthwhile theories depending on your worldview) and then just throws up its hands and blames a generalized social malaise and a cultural cynicism.

Moreover, its concept of just what Tomorrowland is and for what it was intended is somewhat ill-defined. I do not necessarily want a third act filled with narrative and philosophical exposition, but the picture stops dead in its tracks to deal with a newly-revealed threat that must be dealt with right at the finale. The notion of getting our best and brightest together to fix the world is an optimistic one. It is also a notion that acts as a rebuttal to periodic accusations that Mr. Bird is in-fact an Objectivist at-heart (Ayn Rand followers would generally not use their superpowers tosave the world). However,the overall themes and ideas are poorly sketched out due to a relative lack of information regarding the time/space rules of this futuristic world. I will see this film again with my daughter in tow, and I am genuinely concerned about her asking a flood of very reasonable plot-related questions to which I will not have an answer. I will not pretend to know what happened during the production (and post-production) of Tomorrowland. It feels, especially in that rushed and oddly empty final act, that something got lost or truncated for the sake of a somewhat generic action finale.

At the risk of lazy simplification,Tomorrowland feels like the six season run of Lost. As you recall, a bunch of worthwhile character work and intriguing mystery threads were set up in service of a final lap that discarded most of the mysteries and introduced a whole new and simplistic good-vs-evil threat right at the end of the race. I have long forgiven Lost for its final stumble, and I will gladly confess to future generations that the journey itself was worth it even if the destination left something to be desired. With that in mind, I will make a similarly measured recommendation for Brad Bird's Tomorrowland.

The third act is a profound disappointment, but the journey is enjoyable enough to merit a trip. The picture looks gorgeous, and I heartily recommend good-old IMAX 2D if you have the opportunity. The characters are enjoyable, the first 90 minutes are filled with small pleasures and inventive touches, and the film at least touches on some interesting issues even if it cannot quite honestly confront them.Tomorrowland is a case of almost good not being the enemy of perfect as well as me indeed bending over backward to acknowledge an original big-budget fantasy vision that (as a bonus) is female-centric for no specific reason. It is, by default, Brad Bird's worst film yet. However, if Mr. Bird can retire withTomorrowland remaining the worst thing he ever made, well, what a career that will be.

If you like what you're reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and "like" The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.